Thank you for the explanation Soorat. I learned something new today, makes the whole day worthwhile.
Find a new cartoonist.
Sort:
You may think I am complaining unnecessarily - especially as I'm not a Hindu - although I was brought up by two people who follow Hinduism so it's still something close to my heart, a part of my upbringing - even though I chose to remain Muslim - and I don't like seeing anything bad used against it
I don't find many things offensive - but I did find this offensive - so I am afraid I uncharacteristically added my complaints - and I stand by them no matter what anyone else thinks
No, I don't think that at all.
I am glad you took the time to explain it to me. As I said, I learned something new today (and thus reduced my ignorance) and that is my goal - to learn at least one new thing everyday.
rishi2377 wrote:
macer, freedom of expression too has it limits. I am not sure how much would you like your family members are the subject of some ridiculous cartoon
I would not like it but that's not the point. Even if I don't like it the person making it has a right to make it. So according to your logic, if I don't like something like, say, ponies, then every single picture of a pony on the internet has to be banned?
Soorat92 wrote:
I'm Muslim not Hindu, and I don't tend to find much offensive and often enjoy having a laugh, but I must admit I don't like this cartoon really and feel it perhaps crosses a line.
There is freedom of expression macer75 but then there are boundaries too. How many Americans get upset when their flag or effigies of their politicians get defaced or burned. Now I am not saying that this cartoon is quite the same as something as deliberately vindictive as the example I gave but both have potential to cause offense and when they do you can't simply dismiss it as "freedom of expression", especially if the act does not offend your beliefs anyway - so you're not in any position to decide whether it crosses a boundary or not.
Some may argue back that anything has the power to offend someone but we should recognise the broader boundaries of acceptance and not endorce something we can easily recognise as offensive to a majority.
This site says there should be no religious content in discussion but this cartoon clearly holds a religious context and one that can and will cause offence
Again, it doesn't matter if some people are offended. People can be offended by anything, and if we refrained from talking about anything that might offend someone we wouldn't be able to talk about anything.
Soorat92 wrote:
I don't find many things offensive - but I did find this offensive - so I am afraid I uncharacteristically added my complaints - and I stand by them no matter what anyone else thinks
It's ok to find things offensive (although personally I'm not offended by anything, and I'm proud of that). It's not ok to say to someone, I'm offended by what you said, so you can't say that again.
macer75 wrote:
It's ok to find things offensive (although personally I'm not offended by anything, and I'm proud of that). It's not ok to say to someone, I'm offended by what you said, so you can't say that again.
I find that I am offended that you are not offended by anything.
Rsava wrote:
macer75 wrote:
It's ok to find things offensive (although personally I'm not offended by anything, and I'm proud of that). It's not ok to say to someone, I'm offended by what you said, so you can't say that again.
I find that I am offended that you are not offended by anything.
And I'm not offended by the fact that you find it offensive that I'm not offended by anything.
Xieff wrote:
Thanks Xieff!
macer75 wrote:
It's not ok to say to someone, I'm offended by what you said, so you can't say that again.
It's not ok to say to someone, it's not ok to say to say to someone, I'm offended by what you said, so you can't say that again.
DEATHBYRANCHDRESSING wrote:
macer75 wrote:
It's not ok to say to someone, I'm offended by what you said, so you can't say that again.
It's not ok to say to someone, it's not ok to say to say to someone, I'm offended by what you said, so you can't say that again.
Actually I take that back. It is technically "ok" to say that to someone, but if that "someone" is me or someone like me, he just won't listen.
DEATHBYRANCHDRESSING wrote:
macer75 wrote:
It's not ok to say to someone, I'm offended by what you said, so you can't say that again.
It's not ok to say to someone, it's not ok to say to say to someone, I'm offended by what you said, so you can't say that again.
There were too many "say"s in that post.
It's not ok to offend someone
People are quick to defend their freedom of expression but why should that come at the expense of someone else? Why should it be ok to say or depict whatever you like regardless of who it hurts or offends?
One could argue if you use freedom of expression thusly you are condoning a form of verbal or visual abuse (at least in the eyes of those offended) and therefore excusing a very real avenue of bullying or incitement to racial or religious or even personal hatred and all manner of vendetta that may follow as a result
Now you may argue - as I said in my last post - that people maybe offended by anything - and you may call it censorship and infringing your freedom of expression - but then I said this has potential to upset a "majority" not just one or two individuals
Is it ok to say racist things to someone merely because you have a right to express your feelings???
Is it ok to poke fun of someone when they have suffered personal tragedy?
Should there be no boundaries to freedom of expression?
Or should we realise as well as these freedoms we also have a right to try to avoid offense whenever possible and do all we can to take the needs and wants of others into consideration however we can - so as to try to not cause deliberate offense?
It's a balance. The cartoon may be unnecessarily offensive, but invoking examples of prejudicial violence to defend your point of view is pretty extreme. People should be tactful, not only to avoid offending, but to avoid being offended too easily.
@ richie_and_oprah
I wasn't trying to change the argument into one of race etc
My point was about things that can cause offense in general - and in that respect this cartoon causes offense to some in the same way as racist remarks might cause offense to others
Where should we draw the line?
Not at zero.
richie_and_oprah wrote:
ivandh wrote:
It's a balance. The cartoon is needlessly offensive, but using examples of bullying and prejudicial hatred are pretty extreme. People should be tactful, not only to avoid offending, but to avoid being offended too easily.
and what again is the real harm here?
someones feelings derived from a set of beliefs that have zero empirical reasoning or evidence behind them have been hurt?
ninja please
the type of umbrage on display here by the op needs be saved for issues that are actually harmful to real people
your view is that Hinduism is a belief with zero empirical reasoning or evidence - 1 billion people worldwide however would disagree - and they are likely to find this offensive
so about one seventh of the worlds population - thats the harm
Hinduism isn't my belief
but I am curious why you suggest there shouldn't be a right to "not offend"
why is the world a better place where offense can be easily caused?
why should people not respect a person's beliefs either?
i am not saying agree with them - but respect them
everyone should have a right to have their own beliefs
everyone should have a right for those beliefs to be shown the respect they deserve irrespective of the beliefs of others - providing their beliefs don't cause direct offense to others and does not try to impose itself on others
before i become accused of impossing beliefs by slating the cartoon - i would suggest this is where common sense needs to be used to realise where something can cause offense to a number of people and refrain from voicing such depictions where they are likely to cause this offense
a). It depicts Anand as Ganesha a Hindu deity - therefore is about as religious in content you can get
b). It is therefore promoting a stereotype. To add to insult he's just lopped the heads off other GMs
Now I get the metophorical message behind this basket of past challengers - however I don't think the religious or sterotypical images needed to be reinforced in this cartoon. The same effect could have been done with a characterised image of both players without needing to assosiate an Indian player with a Hindu deity.
I can point to a lot of times Christians have been offended by certain things depiciting Jesus or people characterised to look like Jesus in a poor light.
As the original person who posted asked - how would Christians feel if Carlsen had been depicted as Jesus bathed in the blood of the players he's defeated to get his shot at playing Anand?
I know the Norse theme is because Carlsen comes from Norway but I believe today Norway is a mostly Christian country with the viking age generally being considered to have ended a very long time ago